In a recent twist, U.S. Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones of the Fifth Circuit has publicly defended Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman. Newman, at the age of 96, faces an investigation questioning her mental competency to serve on the bench. However, Jones, expressing her reservations in an opinion letter to the Wall Street Journal, has termed the process “inexplicable.”
Echoes of Departure from Established Procedures
Jones voiced concerns over the apparent disregard for regulations and case law surrounding Newman’s potential “career-ending removal.” She emphasized that typical judicial misconduct rules dictate transferring such a case to another circuit’s chief judge and Judicial Council. The lack of adherence to these norms in Judge Newman’s case remains a mystery.
Reminiscing her time as the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Judge Jones revealed overseeing two cases concerning the extrajudicial conduct of federal judges. Both times, she confirmed, proper protocols were strictly adhered to, ensuring unbiased and fair treatment of the judges involved.
A Rising Chorus of Concern
This defense follows an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, authored by New Civil Liberties Alliance attorney Greg Dolin and Columbia Law School professor Philip Hamburger, who are representing Judge Newman. They claim that Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore’s actions may tarnish the reputation of the entire federal judiciary.
